john c roberts supreme court

[MrsSpringsteen]

this is interesting, about the case he was just involved in Hamdan v Rumsfeld


http://www.slate.com/id/2123055/

 

[nbcrusader]

Editorials usually make some stretch to make their point. I was struck by the assertion that:

there's nothing in the Hamdan opinion that stops him from extending their reach to any other suspected terrorist, American citizens included.

Legal opinions usually stick to the facts at hand. To speculate about an omission beyond the scope of the immediate case is only trying to stir fear.

 

[VertigoGal]

as far as not appointing a woman, I think he will when Rhenquist dies/retires. I think he'll appoint a very conservative woman, like Edith Jones, and "promote" Scalia to Chief Justice.

 

[Irvine511]

the distraction about reproductive rights
is serving the administration well.

he is the dream pick for corporate america - chamber of commerce groups, also for the administration’s troubling executive power grab.
these cases will most likely be coming before the court in the years ahead.


All that said,

his confirmation is fait accompli

I predict he will get well over 80 votes to confirm.



The attention should be put back

On Rove and the Administration’s cover–up, obstruction of justice.
This is real, “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

yup.

brilliant politics.

 

[Irvine511]

Roberts is good news for unborn American women.

if they aren't born, how are they women?

 

[dazzlingamy]

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

OUCH. Is that law still in effect?!

and he certainly is rather short sighted when it comes to environmental matters, but then what conservative rich guy isnt?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" the Roe v. Wade precedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Gonzales said a justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong," a comment suggesting Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision settled the issue

Gonzales said circumstances had changed since Roberts commented on Roe v. Wade during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," Gonzales said.

"If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong," Gonzales said.

While abortion foes fret about Roberts' statement two years ago, abortion rights groups are concerned by a legal brief Roberts helped write for a Supreme Court case while serving as deputy solicitor general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

The brief argued that the landmark abortion decision "was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Bush officials have said the brief reflected administration policy and Roberts was one of nine lawyers who signed it.

Gonzales said deciding when to overturn an earlier ruling "is one of the most difficult questions any Supreme Court justice has to answer." Among the factors to consider is how old is the precedent, he said.

Gonzales said he has a "preliminary judgment" about whether the Constitution affords the right to an abortion, but he declined to reveal it.

Gonzales has been thought to be a candidate for the Supreme Court because of his close relationship with Bush and his Hispanic heritage. Conservative groups mounted a strong campaign against his selection, based mainly on questions about his abortion stance.

Asked about that opposition, Gonzales sighed before responding, "This is the big decision. People have waited for over 11 years. There was a lot of pent-up anticipation and a lot vested in this decision."

He would not say whether Bush interviewed him for the job.

 

[nbcrusader]

if they aren't born, how are they women?

When do they become women?

 

[deep]

16 years

or

18 years

it is mostly determined by culture

 

[joyfulgirl]

Any thoughts on the latest?

August 4, 2005
LA Times

By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ews-politics-supreme_court&ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[deep]

the distraction about reproductive rights
is serving the administration well.

he is the dream pick for corporate america - chamber of commerce groups, also for the administration’s troubling executive power grab.
these cases will most likely be coming before the court in the years ahead.


All that said,

his confirmation is fait accompli

I predict he will get well over 80 votes to confirm.



The attention should be put back

On Rove and the Administration’s cover–up, obstruction of justice.
This is real, “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Roberts Unlikely To Face Big Fight

Many Democrats See Battle as Futile

By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 16, 2005; A01

Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.

Although they expect to subject President Bush's nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes -- enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.

"No one's planning all-out warfare," said a Senate Democratic aide closely involved in caucus strategy on Roberts. For now, the aide said, Democratic strategy is to make it clear Roberts is subject to fair scrutiny while avoiding a pointless conflagration that could backfire on the party. "We're going to come out of this looking dignified and will show we took the constitutional process seriously," the aide said.

"This was a smart political choice from the White House," said one prominent Democratic lawmaker, who like several others interviewed for this article requested anonymity because they were departing from the Democrats' public position. "I don't think people see a close vote here."

 

[Lemonfix]

The Democrats' decision to not be too hard on Roberts is not surprising. I think they, like many in the public, were expecting someone far worse, and now that they see Roberts they realize that it is not worth really going after this guy when they will probably need their credibility for another more important fight against someone more extreme.

As for the idea that Bush should have nominated another woman...here's the problem with that. We'd all like a woman or a minority, but what if that woman or minority was much more extreme in their views than Roberts. Wouldn't we all prefer Roberts in that case?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

ORANGE, California (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blasted what he called "judge moralists" and the infusion of politics into judicial appointments Monday after joining law students in a re-enactment of a 100-year-old landmark case.

Speaking before a packed auditorium at Chapman University, Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.

"I am questioning the propriety -- indeed, the sanity -- of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," he said.

Scalia also railed against the principle of the "living Constitution," saying it has led the Senate to try to appoint so-called politically "moderate" judges instead of focusing on professional credentials and ability.

"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" he said, to laughter and applause.

Scalia didn't make any direct references to the looming confirmation battle for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, but he did allude to it.

"Each year the conflict over judicial appointments has grown more intense," he said. "One is tempted to shield his eyes from the upcoming spectacle."